"To restore and conserve fish, wildlife and habitat throughout the state and teach others to do the same."

Because feelings run so deep in the wildlife and environmental arena we are making this a "moderated" blog. All comments will be read by the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy before being posted. Please keep your comments factual, smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent.

Monday, December 31, 2012

Pileated
woodpeckers disappeared from Southern Michigan shortly after the logging and
wildfires at the turn of the 20th century.Pileateds prefer older growth, drier woods—a
rare commodity in post-settlement Southern Michigan.Five generations of Michiganders growing up
south of Saginaw Bay lived in a world without the pileated, the inspiration for
Walter Lantz’s cartoon creation “Woody the woodpecker.”

I
observed pileated woodpeckers several times in the Upper Peninsula in the
1970s, and later in the Northern Lower Peninsula.But I had been waiting many years for my
first Southern Michigan sighting.Naturalists knew pileateds were moving eastward down the Grand River and
Maple River systems.In May I saw my
first chisel-bill in the Rose Lake Wildlife Area (Clinton County).And in June a pileated woodpecker entertained
my wife and me in our own backyard (Shiawassee County).His return ticket to Shiawassee County had
been punched.

The
Great Lakes region was covered with primeval forests in 1800.The settlers coming here all carried sharp
axes and ambitions to make the wilderness productive.The virgin timber they felled built their
homes and provided heat for them.The
wildlife of these vast forests seemed boundless, enough to feed an emerging
nation.

By
the 1850s swamps were being drained and the forests cleared for the plow.Animal species dependent on large trees would
suffer the most losses, but none more than the saw-whet owl, marten and the
pileated woodpecker.

The
pileated woodpecker is North America’s largest chisel bill, if you discount the
possibility of the ivory-billed still existing in southern swamps.“Sir pileated” is almost the size of a crow
and is known for its calling card—large, deep, rectangular diggings, usually
low on dead and dying trees.This is a
place where you would find carpenter ants—the pileateds favorite food.

The
early settlers and loggers knew the pileated well, referring to him by many
names—log-cock, wood cock, great black woodpecker, cock of the woods, wood
hen.The loggers in particular referred
to him fondly as thunder cock, owing to his raucous presence.When they could hear “thunder cock” in the
distance they knew big timber lay ahead.

When
the big timber was gone so was the woodpecker.By 1900 he was rare in Southern Michigan, probably limited to the rugged
terrain of the Lake Michigan dunes and the lowland riverine forests of the
Kalamazoo and St. Joseph Rivers, in Southwest Michigan. Barrows in his 1912 book “Michigan Bird Life”
recounted some of the last sightings in Southern Michigan: one taken at Bangor,
Van Buren County, in the autumn of 1897, by Frank H. Shuver; one seen at Ann
Arbor March 1, 1899 (Chas L. Cass); two taken near Greenville, Montcalm County,
in 1896 by Percy Selous; and two taken near Okemos, Ingham County in 1905
(Barrows).It is presumed “taken” meant
killed.Professor Barrows was the
curator of the General Museum at Michigan Agricultural College (later becoming
Michigan State University).John
Baumgartner, of Grand Ledge, has studied pileateds for decades.He believes birds were killed in the late
1800s to be sold to museums and collectors.This was a period before birds were protected.

No
doubt pileateds were eaten by settlers because of their large size, like
flickers, robins and blackbirds were. My
limited Michigan research uncovered no reviews of “thunder cock” as table fare,
but the settlers ate everything.

In
the Northern Lower Peninsula the pileated remained abundant until the lumber
barons came for Michigan’s white pine to rebuild Chicago after the great fire
of 1871.Between 1870-1920 enough white
pine was cut from Michigan forests to cover the entire state with a board 1”
thick, and have enough wood left over to cover the state of Rhode Island with a
similar board.The loss of Northern
Michigan’s forest treasure forced the pileated to retreat to the hardwoods and
swamps that remained.

The
Upper Peninsula pileateds fared better because of the vastness of the hardwood
forests and swamps.There they remained
an uncommon bird, but known to all.The
Upper is probably where many Michiganders, like me, got their first glimpse of
the pileated woodpecker.

The
history of Michigan’s thunder cock is very closely tied to the management of
our forests.The bird went from being
common throughout the state to disappearing in the South.And while we anguished over the plight of
Michigan’s wildlife the forest was re-growing.

The
often unnoticed phenomenon of forest-growth is called succession.It occurs on every piece of land, but
succession is defined on a given tract by the soil and water regimen found
there.Each piece of land is attempting
to re-grow its most suitable vegetative cover. The suitable cover for most of Michigan
soil/water conditions is forest.If man
were to ignore a given tract of land long enough, the most suitable, best
adapted, forest would grow.After most
of Michigan was cleared of trees by settlers and lumber interests the forests
attempted to re-grow.However, the
forest was continually “set back” anywhere agricultural production was pursued.

Certain
soil and water characteristics were good for farming as well as trees.Highly productive agricultural soils stayed
in farming while less productive soil couldn’t support a “family farm” and were
abandoned by the mid 20th century.These areas re-grew to the forest cover most appropriate for the
site.Fast forward 60 years, or more,
and the forest recovery is obvious.Michigan today is growing almost three times as much wood as we are
harvesting, meaning the trees are maturing in many places.

Added
to that, our forests today are being managed by a cadre of professional
foresters, with an eye toward sustainability.Foresters recognize the importance of the pileated woodpecker and all
species.Today, most strive to
accommodate woodpeckers in the forest by leaving 5-10 snags and rotted trees
per acre on timber harvest operations.

We
will never again make the mistakes of the past if we are wise enough to follow
the principles of sound natural resource management.Forests are capable of producing wood,
recreation, wildlife and aesthetics, all at the same time.And they also produce large amounts of
oxygen. “Old growth” timber should be a planned component of our forest
management system.

The
recovery of Michigan’s forests provided a one-way ticket back to Southern
Michigan for the pileated woodpecker.There
may be other species just waiting to return home if given a chance.

Friday, December 14, 2012

U.S. and Canadian officials signed a new Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement in early September, updating the original
document first signed in 1972.The
strategy to protect the water shared by the two countries now includes focus on
climate change, invasive species and other emerging issues.But not all Great Lakes advocates are happy.

“We were wanting real targets eliminating certain
things, certain percent habitat restoration, things of that nature that are
clear targets with guidelines,” said John Jackson, interim executive director
and program director for Great Lakes United.“Our frustration is that these planning processes can take far too long
and we need action now.Lake Erie can’t
wait three years for you to decide what your targets are and for [another] five
years before you develop an action plan.”

Lack of specifics, and the need for transparency
and accountability are among the criticisms being leveled by many other
advocates.Negotiations between the U.S.
and Canada on water quality management have historically been somewhat
secretive and citizen groups like Great Lakes United want that to change.

Andrew Buchsbaum, co-chair of Healing Our Waters
Coaltion (of which the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy is a member organization),
noted that in the past four decades the Water Quality Agreement has played a
major role in battling nutrient and sewage pollution, and other contaminants
like mercury and polychoinated biphenyls (PCBs).

“The question is whether the Agreement can move us
quicker toward action plans that really have a chance of working,” said
Conservancy President Bill Taylor, of Duck Lake in Calhoun County.“We don’t need any more vague problem
statements.”

A week after the new Agreement was signed,
scientists gathered in Cleveland to discuss the health of the Great Lakes, and
in particular, Lake Erie.Among the
topics were toxic algae blooms, possible entry of Asian carp, and fish kills in
July (near Cleveland) and September (in Canadian waters of Lake Erie).

Last year, scientists from both the U.S. and
Canada monitored a huge toxic algae bloom that covered the western third of
Lake Erie.The bloom clogged harbors and
fouled boat motors.Less phosphorous
entered Lake Erie this year, but biologists are discussing strategies for
long-term phosphorous control to thwart re-occurrences of the bloom next year
and beyond.“We hope all this discussion leads to prompt
action,” said Taylor.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Since it was founded in 1982, the Michigan
Wildlife Conservancy has served as a fiduciary, contractor, supporter,
educator, and trainer of volunteers.On
occasion, the non-profit organization has even been involved in political and
legal battles.In 2012, the Conservancy served
in all those roles while celebrating three decades of conservation efforts.

Working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Conservancy played a key role in the St. Clair Reef construction,
administering a $75,000 construction grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Coastal Grant Program.The
cost of constructing the reef was more than $335,000, with most of it covered
by other federal grants.The
Conservancy’s effort allowed for the reef to be larger and more effective, and
in spring of 2012 came the “proof in the pudding.”Numerous sturgeon used the reef for spawning
and divers were able to film the remarkable event.To view some of the footage go
to http://miwildlife.org/index.asp
and click on “Sturgeon Reef Video” under Community Events.

Once common and widespread, the lake sturgeon
dramatically declined around 1900.It
now has a limited distribution in the Great Lakes region, and is a threatened
species in Michigan waters.

The new reef is located at the head of the Middle
Channel in the St. Clair River delta, where the water currents and bottom type
are well-suited for reef construction.The St. Clair River historically served as an important spawning grounds
for many other native species as well as sturgeon.But channelization, loss of coastal wetlands,
filling/armoring shorelines, water pollution, and dredging limestone bedrock
and gravel caused the sturgeon population to drop to less than one percent of
its former abundance.The St. Clair
River reef will likely help walleyes, whitefish, the endangered northern madtom
and other fishes in addition to sturgeon, and its success will be a catalyst for
similar projects in the future.
In August of 2012, the Conservancy received a
grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) to educate landowners about wild boars and the problems caused
by this invasive exotic species.At least
22 meetings plus small-group informational sessions will be conducted by MWC
over the next twelve months in many parts of Michigan.The Conservancy has already conducted work
sessions at multiple sites in the central Lower Peninsula.The effort is part of a push for early
detection and removal of Eurasian wild boars.

The Conservancy has long been a leader in battling
the species, which destroys crops, lawns, wildlife and a host of related
resources.In 2010, the organization
launched the Michigan Wild Hog Removal Program, a partnership between the MWC
and USDA’s Wildlife Services branch.Private-sector groups that have contributed financially to the Program
include the Michigan Pork Producers Association, the Michigan Corn Grower’s
Association, and the Michigan Forest Association.

The aim is to increase the number of wild hogs killed
annually, and thereby reduce damage to property and resources and/or slow the
invasion of wild hogs into new areas.A
secondary objective is to obtain samples from free-ranging wild hogs to test
for pseudorabies and other diseases.The
important features of the program include the purchase and lending of hog traps
to landowners and other citizens, dissemination of information on wild hogs and
trapping options, and training volunteers to work with biologists on monitoring
and reducing wild hog numbers.

The Conservancy has teamed with USDA to conduct
several group training sessions for volunteer hog trappers, and produced
web-site training materials.Wildlife
Services has the traps made and delivers them to landowners and other
volunteers.The Michigan Department of
Agriculture occasionally provides veterinarians to sample caught hogs for
diseases, and recently provide funds for traps and two USDA employees directly involved
in the effort.In addition, a grant
through USDA’s NRCS provides financial incentives for certain landowners to
trap hogs in Arenac, Bay, Gladwin, and Midland Counties.One (near Midland) has now trapped more than
25 wild hogs in an area of less than one square mile.

The new effort by MWC will boost landowner
awareness and skills.Given Michigan’s
mix of private and public land, citizen involvement in hog control is
critical.Unless landowners can be
quickly educated about the importance of rapid responses to wild hogs, private
properties will continue to serve as “refuges” where hog numbers will build and
then expand onto adjacent properties.

The Conservancy started to develop another
citizen/landowner effort in 2012, one focusing on getting people to actively
participate in the collection of information about wildlife.The organization is emphasizing use of trail
cameras to detect not only nuisance species like wild boars, but rare species
such as cougars, and wolves in the Lower Peninsula. For a
good example of the kind of information citizens can collect see the MWC
website http://miwildlife.org/index.asp and click on the “Training for
Volunteers – Michigan Wild Hog Removal Program” under Community Events.

Conservancy staff were also very active in 2012 in
political/legal arenas supporting Michigan’s ban on possession of live wild
hogs, calling for the permanent separation of Lake Michigan from the Illinois
River to stop the entry of Asian carp into the Great Lakes, and supporting
measures to improve Great Lakes Water Quality.

“This has been a very busy year for the Michigan
Wildlife Conservancy,” said President Bill Taylor of Duck Lake in Calhoun
County.“We are facing some of the most
serious challenges in our state’s history, and citizen involvement in resource
management has never been more needed.”

Monday, November 19, 2012

Dear recipient:I just read an article in the Bay City Times about "Cougars Amoung Us" by John Flesher of the Associated Press, dated 11-4-01. In the issue of "Michigan Out-of-Doors" that I just received today I read another article, "Lions on the Beach?" written by the editor, Dennis Knickerbocker.To make certain that history is properly recorded, I contacted John Flesher about an actual physical encounter with a cougar that I had in western Bay County about 49 years ago. I am contacting you for the same reason.Mine is a true story if you are interested. I will give some of the key elements of the enocunter. The incident occurred on our farm which was located 0.9 miles north of Fisherville (which is in Bay County between Bay City and Midland). My dad had a sawmill and had cut some large trees down in our small woodlot in preparation for sawing into lumber. Some of these trees had fallen into a field which had been planted into sweet clover and alfalfa to be powed under for green fertilizer. This was a very thick level of vegetation with the sweet clover about four to five feet high when my Dad started plowing. I happened to be walking from our house to our barn when I saw my Dad waving me to come to the field. He had just started plowing near the woodlot and had a swath about forty feet wide when I reached the north end of this swath. He was approaching me from the south with the Farmall H and double bottom plow so I walked up the soft earth in his last furrow on the east side of the swath. With the noise of the approaching tractor, and me walking in the bottom of the furrow with the soft black dirt, I didn't make any noise. As my Dad and I got closer together I noticed something on my left moving slowly toward the plowed swath. It moved the clover for a length at least four feet. I had no idea what it was but for some reason I decided to run up the furrow and jump on the patch of moving clover as this approached the furrow. I leaped as high as I could and landed directly on the patch of moving clover (it was too thick to see what was moving). When I landed with both feet on the moving object I heard the most vicious snarling and hissing that I have heard in my life. I leaped back into the air as fast as I landed. My landing was several feet into the clover and when the animal got up and ran across the plowed ground I was totally shocked. This was an actual cougar, mountain lion or puma as some call it. It was in full view of the forty feet that it ran across the plowed ground and another hundred feet or so that it ran along the north side of our woodlot. It was obviously injured because its body sagged a little and didn't run at what I believe should have been full speed. I suspect that I broke some ribs or at least knocked most of the wind out of it. If it had heard me coming I think that the outcome of the incident could have been much more serious. After my dad stopped to talk to me about the incident he related why he motioned for me to come to the field. He had not seen the cougar earlier. What he did see was several large, approximately two foot diameter holes, around one large felled oak tree which he showed me. There also was a large amount of dirt spread in a pile around each hole. If I had known that there was a den of a large animals so close to me I certainly would not have jumped on the animal.I know there are many references to the extinction of the cougar in Michigan in the late 1800's and early 1900's, but I can assure you that at least one still existed in Michigan as late as about 1952.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Hunters have something to crow
about this year.Seventy-five years ago,
a coalition of conservationists – almost all of them hunters – pushed Congress
to divert receipts from a 10 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition
into a special fund for wildlife restoration.The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, now usually referred to as the
Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, was enthusiastically supported by hunters and
has exceeded all expectations.It has funneled
money to the states for non-game and endangered species restoration as well as
traditional habitat work for game animals.

The tax was raised to 11 percent
during World War II and now provides over $160 million annually for
projects.Excise taxes on handguns
(since 1970) and archery equipment (1972) added $41 million and $25 million
annually, respectively.To date, $7.2
billion in PR funds have been granted to the states.

The “strings attached” include
provisions that states can’t turn over P-R revenue to other (non-conservation)
state programs and that they must employ trained wildlife specialists.Also, grants are only available on a 3:1
matching basis so the DNR must come up with one dollar match for every three it
receives.Nationwide, more than half of
the funds goes for purchase, maintenance and operation of wildlife management
areas, while another large chunk of the funds goes for research projects.

The results have been very
impressive.In the first 50 years, a
myriad of wildlife species including wild turkeys, white-tailed and mule deer,
wood ducks, black bears, prairie chickens, pronghorn antelope, elk, mountain
lion (cougars), bighorn sheep, caribou, beaver, bobcat, and sea otters made
incredible comebacks with help from P-R funded projects and programs.In Michigan, the state used P-R funds for
acquiring hundreds of thousands of acres for use as game areas, completed
habitat improvements on these and other state lands, re-introduced wildlife
species, and conducted a variety of research projects.

To date, the Michigan DNR has
received $261 million, the fourth highest total among the states.Michigan got $12.3 million in 2012.The match is usually provided by money from
the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, so hunters and fishermen have a hand
in both the granting and matching.

Labor Day officially marked the
75th anniversary of the Pittman-Robertson Act, but the entire year
of 2012 is a landmark for wildlife conservation.While not everyone agrees that each dollar
was well spent, there is no question that without P-R funds Michigan would not
be the wildlife-rich state it is.The
Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950 taxed fishing equipment to similarly fund
conservation work in rivers and lakes.

The future of this funding seems
fairly bright, at least in the short term.This August, preliminary results of a survey by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service showed a nationwide nine percent increase in hunters and an 11
percent increase in fishermen between 2006 and 2011.There was a 17 percent increase in anglers
fishing in the Great Lakes.

Big-game hunters increased by
eight percent since 2006, and migratory bird hunters by 13 percent.Small game hunters declined in numbers by six
percent.

Spending was also up considerably,
and that’s what directly affects P-R and Dingell-Johnson funds.Many states including Michigan have been
investing time and money into youth and women-oriented programs to boost
recruitment of hunters and anglers.Whether this effort, or other factors, has led to the greater numbers of
hunters and fisherman has not been determined.

Monday, November 5, 2012

This is the
fourth in a series of articles on the nine members of the weasel family that
are found in Michigan.More mustelids
will be featured in future issues.

The mustelids (weasel family) of Michigan include
species that occupy a wide variety of habitats.Some scurry across the land, one -- the badger -- is a digger, and otters
and mink are at home in ponds and rivers.Two species – the fisher (Martes pemmanti) and pine marten (Martes americana)
– move through the trees with the greatest of ease.They are capable of acrobatic catches of prey
ranging from mice to birds to squirrels among the limbs of the tallest trees and
can kill animals much larger than themselves on the ground.

Both species were listed as extirpated in Michigan
by the early 1960’s.But the smaller of
the two – the pine marten – was written off before its time, and some
naturalists suspect that the fisher also survived in small numbers.Valued for its fur, the pine marten was
declared by wildlife officials to be gone from Michigan by the 1950’s.Even the authoritative 1983 book, Michigan Mammals by Rollin Baker,
parroted statements from other biologists that intensive trapping and loss of
habitat had eliminated martens from both the Upper and Lower Peninsulas.After pine martens stopped showing up in
trapping records and field reports of biologists, the species joined wolves,
cougars, and other predators on the list of extirpated species.Wildlife biologists assumed that a
combination of land development, logging and wild fires in the late 1800’s and
early 1900’s wiped out any martens that had not been trapped.

Actually, there were small remnant populations of
pine martens in Michigan that went undetected, according to a 2006
peer-reviewed paper, “Evaluation of a Marten Reintroduction,” by Dr. Brad
Swanson and L. Robert Peters of Central Michigan University and Christopher
Kyle of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.The authors noted that the Michigan pine
marten population today is expanding and healthy from a genetic standpoint
because of multiple reintroductions and follow-up relocations within the
state.They added, “The success was
further aided by the presence of small remnant populations that remained in
Michigan….”

In 1955-57, with the pine marten considered
extirpated, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) obtained 27
martens from Ontario and two from British Columbia and released them in the
Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park in Ontonagon County in the western
Upper Peninsula.However, by 1962 there were
no reliable reports of martens in the area and the planting was considered a
failure.

In 1968, a new effort was launched with funding
from the U.S. Forest Service as well as the DNR.Between 1968 and 1970, another 99 martens
from Ontario were released in Delta and Alger counties.In 1978, the DNR, the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated the
Michigan Marten Reintroduction Program.The next year, a third planting of 148 Ontario martens was made in the Huron
Mountains in Baraga and Marquette counties, and in western Iron County.Finally, the DNR conducted several transfers
in 1989-1992 that moved 20 martens from Iron to Chippewa, and 19 from the
western U.P. to southern Keweenaw County.

In the Lower Peninsula, the DNR and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service released 85 pine martens in 1985-1986 in the Huron-Manistee
National Forest, the Pigeon River Country State Forest, and the Pere Marquette
State Forest.As in the Upper Peninsula,
monitoring has since showed small, slowly expanding populations near the
release areas.

The evaluation by Swanson, Peters and Kyle found
that Michigan’s pine martens are now a genetically-diverse group unlikely to
have reproductive and survival problems that often plague new populations that
come from small numbers of re-colonizing animals.They found no evidence of such a “genetic
bottleneck.” So, the population is not limited by in-breeding.In addition, the researchers also detected
unmistakable genetic markers only found in Michigan.These genetic sequences are not seen in
Chapleau or British Columbia pine martens.That means that remnant populations of Michigan martens had
survived.How large the remnant
populations were, and their exact locations, may never be determined.

Since Michigan now has expanding populations of
pine martens, many people would consider those questions somewhat moot.The remnant martens may have been so low in
numbers that the populations would never have bounced back on their own.Many wildlife species slowly become extinct
when they are geographically and genetically isolated.So, the reintroduction of pine martens starting
in the 1950’s by the DNR was probably a good idea, especially since most of the
animals came from a nearby (Ontario) source that was adapted to climate and
vegetation conditions similar to those found in Michigan.Michigan’s martens were probably not genetically
distinct enough to be of biological significance.

Fishers were also declared extirpated, and
reintroduction efforts began in 1961.About the size of a domestic cat, the species was, like the pine marten,
highly valued for its fur.They were certainly
wiped out in some locations by the early 20th century.The stocking program and trapping
restrictions gradually led to increases in fisher numbers in the U.P.But continued population monitoring showed a
70 percent drop in fisher numbers from 1996 to 2007.That prompted the DNR to make changes in
trapping rules to reduce the harvest of fishers beginning in 2011.

There are some U.P. locales where it is now easy
to find fisher tracks.But there is a
quiet controversy over the animal’s status in the Lower Peninsula.The DNR says it has no verified reports of
fishers in the Lower Peninsula.However,
some naturalists have reported fisher sightings and evidence such as tracks and
scat from Emmet and Cheboygan Counties south as far as the Traverse City
area.Remnant fisher populations went
undetected for many years in Montana until (as in the case of Michigan’s pine
marten) genetic tests showed unique genes.

One of the fisher’s claims to fame is its ability
to kill porcupines.The attacking fisher
makes repeated bites to the face of the porcupine, eventually killing it.When feeding, it avoids most quills, but
ingests a few.Thus, fisher scats often
contain quills.

Fishers also prey on snowshoe hares, showing great
agility on snow.They have oversized
feet that help them stay on top of snow, but they struggle in powdery deep
snow.Their climbing prowess is linked
to extremely flexible ankle joints; fishers can rotate their hind paws almost
180 degrees. That lets them climb down
head first – a great advantage when it is hunting in trees.

A big male can weigh 18 pounds, yet fishers have
been known to kill turkeys and are suspected of occasionally killing deer
fawns.One study in Maine found fishers
responsible for at least four deaths of lynx.It’s possible that fishers occasionally kill bobcats as well.But, tales of their killing powers are probably
exaggerated somewhat because they feed on carrion.So, their stomachs and scats often contain
evidence of animals they did not actually kill.

Fishers and pine martens are now found in the same
general areas, but most biologists think of the two species as separated
ecologically by habitat type.Fishers
favor mature hardwoods, and martens do best in coniferous forests.But recent studies suggest both fishers and
martens can be found in second growth habitats.Fishers will move to habitats with large pines in winter, following
porcupines.So, fishers and martens do
occasionally occupy the same locales.

Dr. Patrick Rusz

Director of Wildlife Programs

Facts About Martens

·In Michigan, the marten is usually referred to
as the “pine marten” or American sable.It has a fairly broad distribution across the northern part of North
America, and there is a related species, the beech or stone marten, in northern
Eurasia.

·Martens are similar to mink in size, with a head
and body length of 14 – 17 inches and a tail about one-third that length.They typically weigh about two pounds; males
are larger than females.

·The brown fur of martens has long been
valued.Hides of martens were the third
most numerous, behind beaver and raccoon, in furs exported at Michilimackinac
in 1767.Almost 10,000 were shipped that
year.Between 1835 and 1839, the
American Fur Company in the Upper Peninsula and Detroit handled nearly 23,000
marten pelts.

·Martens are born and reared in a hollow tree, a
hole in a fallen log or stump, or in a rock pile.Home ranges are 4-8 square miles for males,
and typically about 1-2 miles for females.They are generally solitary animals that associate with each other only
briefly during mating times.

·Martens tend to be nocturnal and have excellent
vision, hearing, and sense of smell.Like most weasels, they are very quick and can kill prey larger than
themselves.Major predators of martens
include fishers, coyotes, bobcats, wolves and great horned owls.

·The pine marten does best in fairly dense stands
of pines, hemlocks, or firs where there are lots of large woody tree limbs and
fallen trees on the ground.Pine martens
are excellent climbers and feed on squirrels (especially red squirrels), birds,
small mammals, insects, and occasionally fruits and nuts.

Facts About Fishers

·Fishers are larger than pine martens.Males are 31-41 inches long and can weigh up
to 18 pounds.Females are much smaller,
usually weighing four to six pounds.

·Fishers lack the orange throat patches that
distinguish martens.

·Female fishers can delay implantation of
fertilized eggs as long as 10 – 11 months and give birth to as many as 6 young.

·Like pine martens, fishers are mostly nocturnal,
but also hunt in daylight.Fishers will
often enter water and typically have home ranges of 50 to 150 square miles.

·Its name is a misnomer because the species
seldom feeds on fish or any other aquatic animal.But fishers feed on carrion, so almost any
kind of animal matter andprey parts can
show up in fisher scat.

Monday, October 29, 2012

In 1984, shortly after the MWC was formed,
then-Governor James Blanchard stated that the Conservancy’s projects “symbolize
a new era in Michigan conservation.”The
nation was trying to climb out of a recession and it was widely-recognized that
government programs for fish and wildlife were experiencing cutbacks.The private sector needed to step forward to
fill the gap – especially with habitat restoration projects.

Over the years the amount of funds for government
projects has ebbed and flowed, roughly with fluctuations in the economy.But funding was also greatly influenced by
federal legislation and (more recently) campaign promises.The Forest Service’s Challenge Grant Program,
Farm Bill, North American Waterfowl Conservation Act, and the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative were among the government efforts to bolster funds for wildlife
conservation.The amount of money spent certainly
increased over the last 30 years, but it is disappointing that not all of it
directly boosted wildlife.Money for
wetland restorations often went for purchase of wetlands, and the transfer to
public ownership did not result in more animals in those habitats in most
cases.

The Conservation programs within the Farm Bill recently
had to be changed to get rid of many inefficiencies.And some of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative habitat projects have moved slowly despite the program’s emphasis of
“shovel-ready projects.”At the state
level, funds for both habitat restorations and maintenance have dwindled.

Often overlooked has been a gradual reduction in
government-funded research.This is
unfortunate because wildlife research capabilities are advancing along with
technology.Geographic information
systems can quickly produce habitat maps.Computers handle complicated data analysis with ease.Heat-sensing cameras and radio receivers can
track animals from the air.Genetic
tests reveal complex relationships among individual animals and populations.

Yet, the potential value of all this modern
technology often can’t be realized because funds for the old-fashioned field
work necessary to obtain the basic data are lacking.Federal and state agencies, in particular,
don’t have sufficient person power to track or capture animals, locate nests,
make detailed observations, and complete other important tasks that gobble up
hours and log miles.Universities get
some of the work done using students earning advanced degrees, but the rest of
the research so important to good wildlife management is often not attempted or
falls to volunteers.

Increasingly, the private-sector has also filled
this gap – perhaps one Governor Blanchard and others did not foresee when they
commented in the early 1980s.Over the
years, the MWC, the Michigan Sharptailed Grouse Society, the National Wild
Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited and a host of other
organizations and individuals have conducted important fish and wildlife
research.Some of it has been done
independently of agencies.

Today, volunteers are assisting with the Michigan
Wild Hog Removal Program and monitoring of wildlife ranging from frogs to
waterfowl to black bears.In fact, the
state’s longest-running black bear research project was started in large part
in 1990 by Mart Williams, then-owner of a wholesale sporting goods company in
Cadillac.Collectively, citizen
scientists symbolize another era in Michigan conservation, and the MWC is
committed to assisting these important wildlife volunteers.

Conclusion

Our state’s “Pure Michigan” ads notwithstanding,
we still have plenty of resource management challenges.The need for private sector involvement is
greater today than in 1982 when the MWC was founded.But things are much more complex than when we
simply looked to put water back into drained wetland basins, plant grasslands,
or repair silt-filled stretches of rivers.A “new era” of conservation is surely on its way – one that will require
citizens to be better informed about the nature of wild and the legal/political
systems that dominate resource management.Citizens who want to make a real difference will have to do more than
just go to meetings or write a check.They will have to be active members of organizations that work in the
middle not just the edge of issues and problems.The MWC will to continue to be that kind of
group.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Shifts in wildlife distributions and densities
have been remarkable in the last three decades.High deer numbers around the fringes of urban areas, expanding coyote,
bear and turkey populations, and declining numbers of pheasants and quail
characterize the period.

There has been a shift southward by several
species that is likely linked to re-growth of the forests of Southern
Michigan.Bears, bobcats, pileated
woodpeckers, and most recently porcupines are among forest wildlife gradually
moving into Southern Michigan after being nearly eliminated for more than a
century.And Michigan has exploding
populations of deer, coyotes, raccoons and other species that cause problems in
many locales.Population control of
native species – not just exotics – is now a more serious problem than it was
30 years ago.And the related threat of
wildlife diseases is now gaining in importance.

Other Michigan wildlife species are expanding
their ranges northward.A recent study
by University of Michigan researchers found that four species – the
white-footed mouse, southern flying squirrel, eastern chipmunk and opossum – are
on the increase in Northern Michigan.

These kinds of “quiet changes” have been
overshadowed by some highly successful wildlife restorations.The MWC played a major role in bringing back
the wild turkey to Southern Michigan, and other trap-and-transfer successes
included the stockings of moose (to the Upper Peninsula), pine martens, and
fishers.Wolves came back on their own in
the Upper Peninsula, and are now present in the northern parts of the Lower
Peninsula as well.Other rare species on
the comeback trail in Michigan include the bald eagle and osprey.Private-sector groups – the Michigan Nature
Association in particular – have quietly purchased and protected habitats for
both rare plants and animals.

Many Michigan sportsmen decry the loss of
pheasants from peaks in the 1950’s and 60’s.In 1982, pheasant numbers had already dropped significantly.Despite a variety of schemes, no solution has
been found.

On the fisheries front, there has been a renewed
interest in restoring spawning habitats for native species like the lake
sturgeon and brook trout.Significant
progress has been made during the past three decades, but the widening of
streams during the logging era has left Michigan with a never-ending need for
fish habitat restoration.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Michigan’s public lands have changed significantly
since the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy began in 1982.There is more of it and it is managed much
differently.The U.S. Forest Service,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the DNR juggle a wide array of interests
in establishing priorities.

Less than one percent of the Great Lakes Basin’s
original forest remains.About 213, 800
of the 600,000 remaining old growth acres are in Michigan.In the Upper Peninsula, Porcupine Mountains
State Park has 31,000 acres, the largest ancient northern hardwood forest on
the continent.Also in the UP are
Sylvania National Wilderness (18,000 acres), Isle Royale National Park (86,000
acres), Dukes Experimental Forest (8,000 acres), and the private Huron Mountain
Club Reserve (6,500 acres).In the Lower
Peninsula, the major old growth area is Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
(12,000 acres).This has changed little
in the last 30 years, signifying that at least the rate of loss has been slowed.

U.S. Forest Service lands have become increasingly
managed as habitat for rare species such as the endangered Kirtland’s warbler,
endangered Karner Blue butterfly, and sharp-tailed grouse.Federal refuges were once managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service almost exclusively for waterfowl. Now, the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge also
manages habitat for the eastern fox snake and trumpeter swan.Lake sturgeon now spawn on a reef the MWC
helped create in the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge.

When the MWC was founded, there was great need for
habitat restorations on State Game Areas.Improvements to wetlands and grasslands were frequently done with a mix
of state and private sector dollars.Then in the 1990’s considerable federal money also became available for
such work on state lands.Now, federal
rules and state cutbacks will likely soon shrink budgets for habitat
restorations and maintenance.Many state
lands remain overgrown with invasive exotic species and urgently need
management to reach their full potential.

The state’s Land Trust Fund has been used to
acquire important lands especially along our Great Lakes coast.New opportunities to obtain lands for green
space and wildlife are available in decaying urban areas where vacant lots have
plummeted in value.

Monday, October 8, 2012

In the 1980’s, the exotic species we knew of in
the Great Lakes were pretty big and their impacts very noticeable. Sea lampreys
that reached 17 inches in length latched onto lake trout and other game fish
and did not let go until the fish was dead or at least emaciated.

Alewife, another species that entered the Great
Lakes area via the St. Lawrence Seaway, were also obvious to everyone who used
the Great Lakes or its shoreline.The
pale-colored fish had died by the millions in the 1960’s and 70’s and washed up
on beaches in stacks several feet high.

Today, we still have plenty of sea lampreys, and
exotic species are entering the Great Lakes arguably faster than when we were
less enlightened.There are now 183
invasive species known to already be in the Great Lakes and a new species
arrives on average every 7 months.Few
of today’s newcomers swim in on their own through the St. Lawrence Seaway,
rather, they ride on the hulls or in the ballast water tanks of ocean going
ships.Among the more notorious are the
zebra mussel and quagga mussel and two small fishes- the round goby and the
ruffe (pronounces as two syllables: ruff-ee).But the list also includes things we can hardly see such as the spiny
water flea, the fishhook flea, and other zooplankton forms.Fishermen spot them fouling their lines, but
most Michigan citizens aren’t aware of them.Instead of scarring fishes or making messes on beaches, the new breed of
Great Lakes exotics mess up the food chain and affect the clarity of the water.

Problems associated with ruffe and gobies are not
as dramatically apparent as with sea lampreys or alewife, but they are also
detrimental.Young ruffe eat the same
food and compete for the same habitat as native yellow perch, walleye and a
variety of other species.Because of
this, ruffe can have a serious impact on perch and walleye fisheries without
leaving external scars as a calling card.Gobies eat small fish and eggs and in low light conditions have a major
competitive advantage over native fish such as darters and sculpins.

Zebra and quagga mussels, on the other hand, feed
by filtering from the water large amounts of microscopic algae, which are an
integral part of the Great Lakes’ food chain.They kill native clams and crayfish by attaching to their bodies,
increase aquatic plant growth by increasing water clarity, and compete with
larval fish and other aquatic organisms for food.Zebra and quagga mussels have so thoroughly
cleared the Great Lakes water that plants such as Cladophera (an algae) can now
grow in much deeper water.

Biologists acknowledge that for today’s exotic
species the only effective strategy is prevention.Once ruffe, gobies, or the host of exotic zooplankton,
mussels, crayfish and other life forms become established you can’t control
them.So, the emphasis has shifted to
educating the public as to how to keep them out of inland waters, and on
legislative action to stop the introduction of new species by requiring the
treatment of ballast water in ocean-going ships.

Prevention is also supposedly the strategy for
dealing with the Asian carp, another disaster in the making.The alien invaders have been swimming north
since the 1970’s when floods washed them from Arkansas fish farms and lagoons
into the Mississippi River.For more
than 35 years the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Environmental Protection Agency and numerous state fish and wildlife agencies
have documented their progress towards the Great Lakes, spending millions on
research and planning.But they have
failed to place a long-term barrier to entry of Asian carp into Lake Michigan.

On land, control (or lack thereof) of invasive exotic
species is perhaps our biggest and most important natural resources management
issue.In the 1980’s, some
conservationists were sounding alarms but the general public and land managers
were just beginning to get it.There was
a long period when federal and state biologists actually recommended planting
exotics such as Autumn olive and mutiflora rose which have since fallen from
grace.Our state’s failure to recognize
the inherent threat posed by exotics also led, in part, to inadequate
containment of the emerald ash borer.The insect has spread over much of the state, leaving millions of dead
trees in its wake.Now, wild boars and
other invasive, exotic species are recognized by many as the foremost threat to
Michigan’s wildlife.The tragedy is that
it took so long for some, especially in management, to get the memo.

Friday, October 5, 2012

What are you doing next weekend?You should join us at CraneFest!The Michigan Wildlife Conservancy will have a
booth with skins, skulls and information about our organization.Here are the particulars:

This is the Eighteenth Annual CraneFest and it will be held
on October 13 and 14, at Michigan Audubon’s Bernard W. Baker Sanctuary, about 3.5
miles north of Cornwell’s Turkeyville, in north central Calhoun County, just
south of Bellevue.For directions please
visit www.cranefest.org.

CraneFest celebrates Michigan’s tallest bird, the Sandhill
Crane, as they migrate south.Festivities are from noon to sunset (around 7 p.m.) each day.This is a free event hosted by Kiwanis Club
of Battle Creek but there will be a small $3 parking fee that goes toward their
service projects.

Some of the featured activities are nature walks,
educational presentations, hands-on activities provided by local environmental
groups, live birds of prey by the Michigan Hawking Club, native reptiles and
amphibians by Nature Discovery on Saturday, live creatures of the night by the
Howell Nature Center on Sunday and a wildlife art show with over 20 different
artists.

Monday, October 1, 2012

In the 1980’s, the banning or restriction of
chemicals such as DDT and toxaphene and the adoption of tough pollution
standards were among actions being lauded.“Victories” – such as the apparent recovery of a once-dying Lake Erie
and the establishment of a world class fishery for salmon – were also being celebrated.

By 1997, numerous environmental conditions in the
Great Lakes were reported by government agencies as mixed to good with
exception of wetland and shoreline resources, stormwater runoff, and status of
exotic species.

In hindsight, some of these reported conditions
and trends were overstated, especially with respect to sewage outfalls.In the last 15 years, Chicago and Detroit
have discharged tens of billions of gallons of untreated wastewater into the
Great Lakes. Less massive but troublesome overflows also occurred at other
cities along the Great Lakes.Levels of
most pollutants entering the Great Lakes have indeed been drastically reduced. But, there is a polluter’s legacy manifested
in what bureaucrats refer to as “areas of concerns (AOC’s)”.These are fairly large geographic areas where
contaminants still impair our ability to use the water.

Michigan’s 13 AOCs have “legacy pollutants,” those
that can persist in the environment for decades.This indicates that while regulating the
sources of pollution is critically important, it does not equate with
restoration.Pollutants persist in
sediments, change forms, and bio-accumulate in the food chain – they don’t
magically disappear.

Advisories to restrict consumption of fish owing
to bioaccumulated chemicals are in still effect over many parts of the Great
Lakes Basin.With exception of
toxaphene, levels of contaminants are at least slowly decreasing.Yet, scientists continue to document
increased levels in humans that eat more fish.

Toxic materials are only part of the array of
pollution problems in the Great Lakes.High
bacteria counts have prompted health officials to close some beaches and issue
broader advisories against swimming.Phosphorous
is being released in municipal and industrial sewage, and also comes from
runoff of agricultural lands and fertilized lawns.There is interest in a statewide ban of
phosphorous in fertilizers, a step seen as a logical and important extension of
Michigan’s ban of phosphorous in laundry detergent in the 1970’s.But as in the case of toxic pollutants, bans
won’t entirely solve the problem.That’s
because the phosphorous already in the Great Lakes is consistently recycled.Phosphorous is a key nutrient that causes
algae growth and subsequent oxygen loss.We have a large and growing “dead zone” in Western of Lake Erie that
testifies to the detrimental impact of excessive nutrient loading.

Many of the changes in the Great Lakes’ values and
pollution levels have been influenced by fluctuations in water levels and
temperatures. The biological impacts of water temperature increases, in
particular, are becoming obvious.Blooms
of some of the more noxious algae forms are occurring earlier and more
frequently.

Monday, September 24, 2012

The Michigan
Wildlife Conservancy has been working for 30 years to restore our state’s wildlife.While we can be proud of the hundreds of
worthwhile projects completed with our partners and cooperators, the question
arises: How have Michigan’s natural resources fared overall during the last
three decades?Is conservation winning,
or do we have much more work to do?

Land Use

When the Wildlife Conservancy was formed in 1982,
there were new laws in place to keep urban sprawl -- that phenomenon
characterized by massive subdivisions, strip malls, industrial parks, and
snarled traffic where farms, woods and wildlife used to be -- out of important
wetlands and floodplains.But over the
next ten years, Michigan lost 7.8 percent of its farmland acreage, and
biologists became increasingly aware that “leap-frog” development was making
remaining habitat too fragmented to support certain species.

Particularly in Southeast Michigan, but also in
the Grand Rapids and Traverse City areas, urban sprawl was not simply the
inevitable result of population growth.Local
governments were eager to extend roads, sewer lines and other utilities to
far-flung developments.And zoning rules
– ironically enacted to avoid land use conflicts and boost the quality of life
– required large building lots and low density developments, thereby bringing
in fewer people to areas zoned for residential use and minimizing open
space.

The Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act of
1974 provides tax credits to farmers who give up development rights.By 2000, about 40 percent of Michigan’s
farmland was enrolled in the program, but today, very little of that land is in
areas where development pressures are intense.The tax breaks have largely gone to farmers who were not going to sell
to developers anyway.And where urban
sprawl is a real threat, the program has not offered enough money to individual
farmers to persuade them to keep their land in agriculture.

In 2001, the final report of the Michigan Land
Resource Project predicted that between the years 2000-2040, there would be:a 17 percent reduction in agricultural land,
a 178 percent increase in “built” land, an 8 percent drop in private
forestland, a decrease of 10 percent in wetland acreage and a 24 percent loss
in other vegetation.The report also
predicted that “land available for hunting will dramatically decrease, while
‘edge’ species such as white-tailed deer will continue to increase in numbers.”

The recent economic downturn has slowed growth in
general, so the report’s predicted tripling of the amount of built land is
questionable.But the trends are
not.Habitat fragmentation is still
considered one of Southern Michigan’s most serious wildlife management
concerns.Some tough choices must be made
if Michigan is to preserve the character of our 36 million acres for future
generations.

Michigan is one of only two states that tax land
according to its most valuable use rather than its existing use.Farmland and open space thus sometimes get
taxed according to their potential value for housing or commercial
development.That puts real pressure on
landowners on the urban fringe to sell sooner, rather than later, and that type
of taxing should be eliminated.

Michigan recently started a program to purchase
development rights, ironically using penalties and other funds paid back to the
Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program by landowners who wanted out.But the amount of cash generated has been
minimal in comparison to the interest by landowners.

Michigan now has more than 40 private-sector
conservancies that acquire and hold conservation easements that preserve open
space.Most focus on lands with unique
resources such as rare plant or animal species, or scenic views.

Such programs for purchase of development rights need
to be better funded, and local governments need to stop subsidizing road,
sewer, and water projects that encourage developments in outlying areas.Incentive-driven programs of tax credits, low
interest mortgages, and school modernization funding can and should be used to
promote new development in urban areas.The Michigan Land Use Institute has rightly called for a program which
controls the way taxpayer’s money is spent rather than placing severe
restrictions on developers and formulating complex land use regulations.

Friday, September 14, 2012

30th Anniversary Celebration/2012 Fall Harvest Social

It’s that time of year again…Fall Harvest Social time!But this year our celebration is even more special.2012 marks the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy’s 30th year.So, plan for a day of fun with your family at our combined 2012 Fall Harvest Social/30th Anniversary Celebration on September 22.

Michigan Wildlife Conservancy has declared our grand celebration in the name of the birds.

The Michigan Wildlife Conservancy will take you on a guided bog tour (first of three) and a singer will entertain at a bonfire in our new fire pit.

11:00 A.M. –

Join Dr. Patrick Rusz and P.J.’s Percherons on a horse-drawn wagon ride around the prairie (running throughout the day), take a self-guided tour of the Bengel Wildlife Center grounds and stop at all 4 birding stations set up by the Michigan Audubon Society, and don’t forget to find Robbyn Van Frankenhuysen at the fire pit, telling amazing stories that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Wait… there’s more!We have arranged many intriguing programs that are great for the family:

11:00 A.M. –

Michigan Audubon Society will be helping us “Fall in Love with Birding”

12:00 P.M. –

Nick Van Frankenhuysen will teach kids how to draw animals and birds.

1:00 P.M. –

Attending “Skins and Skulls,” will allow you to see both the outside and the inside of some of Michigan’s animals.Don’t forget to complete your experience by making your very own plaster cast of a Michigan animal track.

2:00 P.M. –

Chad Kister will amaze you with his exquisite photos of the Arctic in “Arctic Screaming,” a presentation about his experiences from his treks through the Arctic.Chad is an award-winning environmental journalist who has made protecting the Arctic environment his life’s work.Check out his books:

§Arctic Quest:Odyssey Through a Threatened Wilderness (Available in the Dancing Crane Gift Shop)

§Arctic Melting:How Climate Change Is Destroying One of World’s Largest Wilderness Areas

§Against All Odds:The Struggle to Save the Ridges

§Arctic Screaming:A Journey to the Front Lines of the Climate Crisis

3:00 P.M. –

Joe Rogers will finish off the day with birds, birds, and more birds in “Birds of Prey” (sponsored by Clinton County).Come see some of our predators of the sky up close.Mr. Rogers will introduce you to each bird and explain to you the strengths and characteristics of the magnificent feathered species’.

Don’t just come for the fun programs!From 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. we are offering many different children’s activities, such as “Bobber Bob,” “Find That Bird” scavenger hunt, and “Fruits and Nuts.”Tickets for these games are $0.25 a piece.You may buy tickets at the information booth.Five lucky kids will win a prize!

We invite you to take in the day with us at Bengel Wildlife Center.You may want to bring a picnic lunch, sun screen, binoculars, and a blanket.For those of you who do not bring a picnic lunch, we will have a hot dog vendor here for your convenience.

We will also need volunteers to set up for our 30th Anniversary Celebration/2012 Fall Harvest Social. We are asking for volunteers for 3 shifts 8:30 A.M. – 10:00 A.M., 10:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M., and 1:00 P.M. – 4:30 P.M.If you are able and willing to volunteer we would love to have you.Lunch will be provided for volunteers inside the building.